UonAKr 

^NIVERSHYoflLLINOt 


AN  OPEN  LETTER 

To  the  Honorable  G,  H.  Grosvenor, 

IN  REPLY  TO 

RECENT  ATTACKS 

i 

ON 

The  Civil  Service  Law  and  Rules. 


AN  OPEN  LETTER. 


OFFICE  OF  THE 

National  Civil  Service  Reform  League, 

54  WILLIAM  ST.,  NEW  YORK. 

To  the  Honorable  C.  H.  Grosvenor, 

House  of  Representatives , 

Washington ,  D.  C. 

Sir: 

You  are  the  author  of  an  address  of  some  fifty-two  columns 
length,  not  as  yet  delivered,  but  printed  in  the  Congressional 
Record  of  i\ugust  n,  last,  with  the  permission  of  the  House. 
In  this  paper,  which  you  entitle  “  Civil  Service  Reform  Run 
Mad,”  you  attack  the  existing  civil  service  law  and  rules  in 
language  somewhat  violent,  declaring  in  conclusion  that  you 
will  “  ask  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  ‘  modify  ’  the 
law,”  threatening  to  repeat  the  speech  itself,  by  way  of  argu¬ 
ment  to  that  end,  and  adding  that  no  Committee  on  Reform 
in  the  Civil  Service,  or  any  other  power,  shall  “  smother”  you. 
Since  the  reassembling  of  Congress  you  have  given  further 
evidence  of  your  intentions  in  this  regard.  You  have  assum¬ 
ed  the  position  of  leader  in  a  movement  to  induce  your  party 
to  repudiate  its  pledges,  and  to  take  those  “backward  steps” 
it  has  given  its  word  of  honor  it  will  not  take. 

You  will  pardon  me,  therefore,  if,  in  view  of  your  promi¬ 
nent  relation  to  this  highly  important  matter  I  address  to  you 
publicly,  as  the  occasion  requires,  certain  exceptions  to  your 
arguments,  and  to  your  methods,  that  I  trust  will  have  fair 
consideration. 

You  have  based  your  attacks  on  the  law,  and  your 
justification  for  your  course,  on  a  series  of  either  untrue  or  ir¬ 
relevant  statements  peculiarly  flagrant  in  their  character  and 
calculated  to  deceive  to  a  serious  degree  those  who  are  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  subject,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress.  These 
statements  are  contained  in  your  printed  speech.  It  is  of 
the  greatest  moment,  just  at  present,  that  they  be  pointed  out 
plainly,  for  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  that  any  considerable 
proportion  of  your  fellow  members,  when  in  possession  of  the 
actual  facts,  will  aid  you  in  such  a  movement  as  you  are  en¬ 
couraging.  The  merit  system  in  public  administration,  devel¬ 
oped  by  successive  Presidents,  and  consistently  maintained 
by  the  President  whose  policy  you  are  now  opposing,  is  too 
valuable  to  the  people  of  this  country  to  be  sacrificed,  or  in 
any  degree  impaired,  through  a  campaign  of  false  pretences. 


4 


Let  me  select  from  your  collection  those  misstatements 
that  you  are  in  the  habit  of  employing  most  frequently : 

THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  CIVIL  SERVICE  ACT. 

(I.)  The  civil  service  law  now  applies,  approximately,  to 
87,000  officers  and  employees  in  the  Executive  Service,  in  a 
total  of  178,000.  It  covers  all  positions  except  those  in  the 
Legislative  and  Judicial  branches,  those  filled  by  the  Presi¬ 
dent  subject  to  confirmation  by  the  Senate,  the  fourth  class 
post-offices,  the  common  laborers,  and  several  thousand  mis¬ 
cellaneous  places  of  minor  grade.  The  rules  except  also,  from 
competitive  examination,  certain  deputies,  attorneys  and  private 
secretaries  to  the  number  of  1,200.  The  examinable  classes 
include,  in  short,  positions  the  incumbents  of  which  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  carrying  out  of  the  political  policies  of 
the  government,  and  that  are  of  a  business  nature  only.  The 
law  requires  that  appointments  to  all  of  these  shall  be  thrown 
open,  on  equal  terms,  to  all  citizens,  the  ultimate  selections  to 
be  made  from  among  those  who  are  proven  by  careful  exam¬ 
ination  to  be  most  fit.  You  declare  that  this  condition  has 
been  brought  about  “  illegally  ”  and  “  fraudulently,”  and  you 
add : 

“It  (the  law)  was  never  intended  to  cover  anything  but  the  De* 
partments  in  Washington,  and  that  alone  in  its  application  to  the  cleiical 
force. ” 

The  law  declares,  practically  in  its  own  terms,  that  it  was 
intended  to  cover  exactly  the  positions  to  which  it  now  applies. 
There  are.  as  you  are  probably  aware,  two  principal  acts  regu¬ 
lating  the  administration  of  the  civil  service.  The  first  is  known 
as  Section  1753  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  became  a  law  on 
March  3,  1871.  It  provides  that  the  President  may  “pre¬ 
scribe  such  regulations  for  the  admission  of  persons  into  the 
civil  service  of  the  United  States  as  may  best  promote  the  effi¬ 
ciency  thereof  and  ascertain  the  fitness  of  each  candidate  in 
respect  to  age,  health,  character,  knowledge,  and  ability  for 
the  branch  of  the  service  into  which  he  seeks  to  enter,”  adding 
that  the  President  may  also  establish  regulations  for  the  conduct 
of  such  persons,  after  appointment.  You  will  observe  that  this 
grant  of  authority  is  very  sweeping.  The  act  of  January  16, 
1883,  conferred  very  much  the  same  authority,  but  went 
farther,  in  that  it  prescribed  the  methods  to  be  followed  and 
expressly  directed  that  certain  parts  of  the  service  should  be 
classified  at  once;  leaving  the  others  to  be  brought  in  gradual¬ 
ly,  in  the  discretion  of  the  President.  The  parts  immediately 
affected  comprised  the  departmental  service  at  Washington — 
including  “subordinates,  clerks  and  officers ,”  and  those  Post- 
offices  and  Custom  Houses  outside  Washington,  having  fifty  or 
more  employees.  The  act  then  required  that  the  Postmaster- 


5 


General  should  “  from  time  to  time,  on  the  direction  of  the 
President/’  arrange  in  like  classes  clerks  and  persons  in  the 
postal  service,  “  in  connection  with  any  other  post-office,”  and 
that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  perform  a  like  duty 
with  regard  to  the  smaller  Customs  districts.  To  provide  for 
all  other  extensions  the  act  contained  the  following  perfectly 
explicit  language  (Section  6,  Sub-div.  3) : 

From  time  to  time  said  Secretary,  the  Postmaster-General,  and  each 
of  the  heads  of  departments  mentioned  in  the  one  hundred  and  fifty-eighth 
section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  each  head  of  an  office,  shall  on  the 
direction  of  the  President,  and  for  facilitating  the  execution  of  this  act, 
respectively  revise  any  then  existing  classification  or  arrangement  of 
those  in  their  respective  departments  and  offices,  and  shall  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  examination  herein  provided  for,  include  in  one  or  more  of 
such  classes,  so  far  as  practicable,  subordinate  places,  clerks,  and  offices  in 
the  public  service  pertaining  to  their  respective  departments  ?iot  before 
classified  for  examination. 

To  fix  the  limit  beyond  which  these  extensions  should  not 
pass,  it  was  provided  that  “Any  officer  not  in  the  Executive 
branch  of  the  Government,  or  any  person  merely  employed  as  a 
laborer  or  workman”  or,  unless  by  the  direction  of  the  Senate, 
“  any  person  who  has  been  nominated  for  confirmation  by  the 
Senate,”  should  not  be  required  to  be  classified.  Then,  to 
make  more  plain,  if  possible,  the  authority  granted  within  these 
limits,  it  was  further  provided  (Section  7)  that  “Nothing  herein 
contained  shall  be  construed  to  take  from  the  President  any 
authority,  not  inconsistent  with  this  act,  conferred  by  the 
1 753^  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes.” 

Referring  to  the  plan  and  scope  of  the  act,  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Civil  Service  and  Retrenchment  of  1882,  in 
their  report  on  the  subject  to  the  Senate,  wrote  as  follows : 

It  is  conceded  that  the  party  in  power  must  fill  the  higher  official 
places,  which  fairly  represent  its  principles  and  policy,  and  subject  to 
whose  legal  instructions  the  whole  subordinate  administration  is  to  be 
carried  on.  But  the  subordinates  in  the  Executive  departments,  whose 
duty  is  the  same  under  every  administration,  should  be  selected  with  sole 
reference  to  their  character  and  their  capacity  for  doing  the  public  work. 
This  latter  class  includes  nearly  all  of  the  vast  numbers  of  appointed  of¬ 
ficials  who  carry  into  effect  the  orders  of  the  Executive  or  heads  of  de¬ 
partments,  whether  at  Washington  or  elsewhere. 

The  Committee  then  proceeded  to  explain,  what,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  so  perfectly  patent  from  an  examination  of  the 
statute  itself,  that  the  plan  was  “  tentative  ”  in  that  it  was  to 
be  applied  first  under  limitations ;  that  it  could  be  “  extended 
readily  at  any  time and  that  ultimately  it  was  to  embrace 
within  its  scope  all  of  that  class  of  officers  mentioned  in  the 
paragraph  I  quote. 

Following  a  course  that  you  proclaim  to  be  “illegal  ”  and 
“  fraudulent,”  successive  Presidents  have,“  from  time  to  time,” 
revised  the  classification,  until  it  now  covers  a  large 


6 


proportion  of  the  classifiable  offices,  though  not  all.  The  last 
of  the  series  of  revisions  made  by  Presidents  Arthur,  Harrison 
and  Cleveland,  dated  May  6,  1896,  contains  the  following 
preamble : 

In  the  exercise  of  power  vested  in  him  by  the  Constitution,  and  of 
authority  given  to  him  by  1753d  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  by 
an  act  to  regulate  and  improve  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States,  ap¬ 
proved  January  16,  1883,  the  President  hereby  makes  and  promulgates 
the  following  rules,  and  revokes  all  others. 

You  will  not,  except  at  the  risk  of  chaffing  from  your  legal 
friends,  repeat  your  charge  that  the  several  grants  of  author¬ 
ity  therein  cited  do  not  cover  every  extension  of  the  civil  ser¬ 
vice  rules  that  has  as  yet  been  made. 

EXTENSIONS  HAVE  NOT  GIVEN  PARTISAN  ADVANTAGE. 

(II.)  The  next  statement  to  which  exception  must  be  taken 
is  that,  through  the  several  extensions  that  have  been  made, 
and  more  particularly  through  those  of  the  last  preceding  ad¬ 
ministration,  undue  advantages  have  been  secured  to  either 
one  party  or  the  other — secured,  in  fact,  to  such  a  degree  that 
the  intervention  of  Congress  is  needed  to  correct  abuses.  You 
say,  for  instance : 

“  Before  I  get  through  I  will  attempt  to  show  that  the  greatest  brutal¬ 
ity  of  spoilsmanship  that  ever  disgraced  the  American  people  was  under 
the  head  and  cover  and  mask  of  civil  service  reform,  by  a  technical  and 
absolutely  accurate  following  of  this  law  and  the  orders  of  its  promulga¬ 
tion  and  enforcement  by  the  recent  administration.” 

This,  I  take  it,  is  at  once  an  inadvertent  admission  that 
you  were  not  quite  right  about  the  authority  for  extensions, 
and  a  charge  that  the  orders  of  the  last  administration,  such 
as  they  were,  served  the  ends  of  “  spoilsmanship.”  It  is  not 
my  purpose  to  defend  Mr.  Cleveland ;  I  am  not  sure  that  in 
this  regard  he  needs  defense;  but  when  you  make  his  orders 
one  of  the  bases  of  your  attack  on  the  general  system  I  am 
bound  to  consider  them.  Let  us  have  the  facts : 

Mr.  Cleveland  during  his  second  term,  extended  the  rules 
to  33,169  positions  not  previously  subject  to  examination. 
The  exact  nature  of  these  positions  I  shall  explain  farther  on. 
For  the  present,  it  suffices  to  say  that,  practically,  not  one  of 
the  incumbents  affected  was  protected  from  removal  for  any 
reason  within  the  judgment  or  caprice  of  his  superior  officer, 
whether  the  latter  might  be  a  Democrat  or  a  Republican. 
Your  statement  that  any  such  employee  was  “  protected  ”  by 
his  inclusion  in  the  classified  service  is  absolutely  and  unquali¬ 
fiedly  false.  Such  a  charge  could  be  made  neither  against  the 
last  administration  or  any  of  its  predecessors. 

In  view  of  the  exceptionally  keen  interest  you  have  shown 
in  the  operations  of  the  civil  service  law,  I  cannot  doubt  that 


7 


you  have  long  since  discovered  that  until  the  orders  issued  by 
President  McKinley  on  the  27th  of  July,  last,  the  civil  service 
rules  contained  no  provision  that  had  been  practically  oper¬ 
ative  in  preventing  a  dismissal  for  any  reason  a  superior  officer 
chose  to  assign. 

You  may  say  that  even  though  Mr.  Cleveland  did  leave 
the  power  of  removal  practically  unrestricted,  he  had  filled  so 
many  offices  with  Democrats  before  classifying  them  that  the 
appointment  of  the  successors  of  these  through  competitive 
examination — which  is  the  real  result  of  the  extensions — will 
not  equalize  the  political  proportion  for  some  time  to  come. 
That,  however,  would  be  equally  untrue  and  unfair.  As  a 
proof  of  this  I  could  offer  nothing  better  than  a  list  of  the 
actual  classifications  since  January  16,  1883,  arranged  with 
reference  to  the  political  character  of  the  administrations  under 
which  they  have  taken  effect.  The  official  records  show  that 
13,924.  officers  and  employees  were  embraced  in  the  original 
classification  in  1883,  that  57,707  have  been  added  through 
Executive  extensions,  and  that  15,467  have  come  in  through 
the  natural  expansion  of  the  service.  President  Cleveland’s 
order  of  May  6,  1896,  while  nominally  classifying  31,372,  in 
reality  covered  5,063  Navy  Yard  employes — placed  under 
the  rules  by  Secretary  Tracy  in  1890 — as  well  as  5,536  Treas¬ 
ury  employees,  in  the  Revenue  Cutter  Service  and  other 
branches,  who  had  been  under  examination  regulations  for 
many  years.  It  included  also  5,216  field  employments  in 
the  War  Department,  that  had  been  in  no  sense  political. 
The  new  classification  was  made  comprehensive  for  the  sake 
of  uniformity.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  as  well,  that  the 
inclusion  of  the  Railway  Mail  Service  in  1888,  was  deferred 
until  May,  1889,  and  must  therefore  be  credited,  so  far  as  the 
actual  application  of  the  rules  is  concerned,  to  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  President  Harrison. 

The  record  of  classifications,  therefore,  will  read  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 


republican: 

1883-5. 

Original  Classification  13,924 

1889-93. 

Extensions  of  President 

Harrison,  .  .  8,690 

Railway  Mail  Service  (Ap¬ 
plication  suspended  to 
May  1,  1889),  .  5,320 

Navy  Yard  employees, 
placed  under  rules  by 
Secretary  Tracy,  .  5, 063  j 

32,987  I 


DEMOCRATIC.: 

1885-9. 

Extensions  of  President 
Cleveland,  less  Railway 
Mail  Service,  .  1,939 

1893-7. 

Extensions  of  President 
Cleveland,  prior  to  May 
6th,  1896,  .  .  10,396 

Extensions  of  May  6, 

1896,  less  Navy  Yard 
employees,  .  .  26,309 


38.644 


(Republican.) 


32.987 


(Democratic.)  38,684 

Less  Non-political  bran¬ 
ches,  Treasury  Bureaus 
previously  under  exam¬ 
ination  systems.  5,536 

Employees  of  the  Engi¬ 
neers  and  others  in  War 

Department,  .  5, 216 - 

io,752 


32,987 


27,892 


Recapitulation  :  Under  Republican  Administrations, 
Under  Democratic  “ 

Non-political, 


32,987 

27,892 

io,752 


Natural  Growth, 


71,631 

15,467 


87,098 


The  Republican  party,  which  was  responsible  principally 
for  the  enactment  of  the  civil  service  law,  is  as  clearly  entitled 
to  credit  for  the  extensions  that  have  since  been  made  as  is 
the  Democratic  party;  and,  I  may  add,  that  whatever  at¬ 
tempts  you  may  make  to  deny  that  credit,  are  bound  to  be 
profitless. 

If  it  is  to  be  assumed  that  all  of  the  persons  classified  from 
time  to  time  have  been  adherents  of  the  party  in  power,  it  will 
be  seen,  on  examination  of  the  table  given  above,  that  the 
relative  proportion  has  been  pretty  evenly  maintained.  What 
justice  there  can  be  in  a  charge  that  the  extensions  of  the  last 
administration  subserved  political  ends  any  more  than  those 
of  the  preceding  administrations,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive. 
Furthermore,  an  analysis  of  the  extensions  of  the  Cleveland 
administration  shows  an  even  lower  proportion  of  inclusions 
that  you  might  term  political,  than  appears  from  the  table 
itself.  Besides  the  War  and  Navy  employees,  2,061  were 
Indians  employed  in  the  Indian  Service,  and  subject  to 
non-competitive  examination  only;  4,120  were  pension  exam¬ 
ining  surgeons,  paid  by  fees  and  removable  from  the  classified 
service  by  a  reduction  in  the  amount  of  such  fees.  Perhaps 
18,000  were  of  a  class  either  exceeding  or  approaching  in  im¬ 
portance  those  classified  originally  in  1883.  These  are  not 
speculative  figures,  you  will  understand ;  they  may  be  verified 
with  very  little  trouble  if  you  are  disposed  to  consult  the  offi¬ 
cial  records. 

In  the  branches  last  mentioned,  the  political  proportion 
was  in  some  cases  preponderantlv  Democratic,  but  in  others 
was  fairly  equal.  There  is  the  Government  Printing  Office, 
for  instance,  concerning  which  I  find  abundant  mention  in 
your  speech.  The  roster  of  that  office  for  August  1,  1895,  the 


9 


date  on  which  the  rules  went  into  effect,  showed  that  of  the 
2,710  employees,  842,  or  31  per  cent.,  had  been  appointed  by 
Mr.  Benedict,  the  Democratic  Public  Printer  then  holding 
office,  while  1,203,  or  44  Per  cent.,  had  been  appointed  by 
Mr.  Benedict’s  Republican  predecessor,  Mr.  Palmer,  and  665 
had  served  in  the  office  over  seven  years,  both  under  Mr. 
Benedict  and  under  Mr.  Palmer.  I  will  give  a  few  other  in¬ 
stances:  In  the  Post  Office  Department,  the  records  show 
that  the  total  salaries  of  the  superintendents,  division  chiefs 
and  chief  clerks,  classified  under  the  order  of  May  6,  was 
$83,000,  and  that  of  this  sum  the  appointees  of  the  Cleveland 
administration  drew  $38,300,  and  the  former  appointees  $45,- 
500.  In  May,  1894,  a  census  of  the  Pension  Office  showed 
that  there  were  266  Democrats  and  1,160  Republicans  on  the 
rolls,  omitting  from  the  compilation  421  women.  On  March 
3,  last,  there  were  in  the  Sixth  Auditor’s  Office,  according  to 
the  sworn  statement  of  Auditor  Howard,  216  Democratic  em¬ 
ployees  and  271  Republican,  the  former  drawing  $257,480  in 
annual  salaries,  and  the  latter  $308,560.  In  the  office  of  the 
Comptroller  of  the  Currency,  still  under  a  Democratic  head, 
three-fourths  of  the  clerks  are  Republicans,  as  Mr.  Eckels,  I 
think,  will  cheerfully  testify.  These  are  fair  illustrations.  In 
other  departments- Democrats  will  be  found  in  a  majority,  but 
it  is  the  average  we  are  considering.  In  the  Internal  Revenue 
Service,  the  Secret  Service — an  instance  you  cite— -and  in 
other  branches,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  proportion  of 
Democrats  left  by  Mr.  Cleveland  was  large,  but  these  cases 
differ  little  in  degree  from  that  of  the  Free  Delivery 
Post  Office  Service,  where  the  7,600  employees  classified 
by  General  Harrison  were  Republicans  almost  to  a 
man. 

The  changes  under  the  last  administration  that  attracted 
the  most  attention  were,  undoubtedly,  those  in  the  higher 
offices  of  the  Treasury  and  Interior  Departments.  There, 
many  good  officers,  division  chiefs  and  others,  were  unjustly 
removed,  but  the  subsequent  classification  of  the  positions 
did  not  prevent  the  correction  of  such  injustices.  The  proof 
of  this  is  right  at  hand,  for  there  have  been  many  changes 
among  officers  of  this  class  under  the  present  administration. 
In  the  Pension  Bureau  there  are  but  two  of  the  old  chiefs, 
out  of  twenty,  that  remain.  To  recapitulate  :  Is  there  a  case 
in  the  entire  list  where  a  classified  employee  has  been  “  pro¬ 
tected  ”  by  Mr.  Cleveland’s  orders ;  is  it  not  plain  that  the 
political  proportions  of  the  service  have  been  equally  main¬ 
tained,  and  if  not, — and  it  were  important  that  they  should  be, 
— is  it  not  perfectly  patent  that  it  has  been  wholly  within  the 
power  of  the  officers  of  the  present  administration,  regardless 
of  President  Cleveland’s  acts,  to  correct  as  many  inequalities  as 
they  might  have  seen  fit  ? 


IO 


REMOVALS  NOT  GOVERNED  BY  THE  LAW  :  THEIR  PROPORTION. 

(III.)  In  another  part  of  your  paper  you  print  a  number 
of  tables  showing  in  detail  the  changes  in  the  departmental  ser¬ 
vice  during  the  past  administration.  You  declare  that  a  careful 
study  of  these  figures  will  enable  one  to  reach  : 

“  A  comprehension  of  the  magnitude  of  this  sweep — all  done  under 
the  head  of  civil  service  reform.  '’ 

Herein  you  admit,  perhaps  again  inadvertantly,  that  the 
“  protection  ”  you  have  talked  about  does  not  exist,  for  the 
removals  mentioned  occur  in  both  classified  and  unclassified 
places.  It  is  necessary  to  remind  you  again,  nevertheless, 
that  these  things  were  not  done  “  under  the  head  of  civil  ser¬ 
vice  reform,”  for  the  reason  that  the  rules  at  that  time  gov¬ 
erned  neither  removals  nor  reductions.  Why  you  should 
charge  the  law  with  responsibility  for  failing  to  accomplish 
that  for  which  there  was  no  provision  in  the  law,  is  unfathom¬ 
able. 

Your  own  tables,  however,  convict  you  of  other  strange 
conceits.  They  show  that  the  changes  made  were  relatively 
few,  and  that  your  story  of  thousands  of  places  vacated  by  Mr. 
Cleveland,  to  be  filled  by  his  appointees,  and  placed  “  under 
the  protecting  aegis  ”  of  civil  service  reform,  is  sadly  at  fault. 
You  include  the  figures  for  the  Department  of  Agriculture, 
which  were  prepared  on  a  different  basis  from  the  others,  and 
covered  many  hundreds  of  crop  reporters  and  similar  em¬ 
ployees,  who  are  changed  frequently  and  for  all  sorts  of  rea¬ 
sons.  For  the  sake  of  clearness  I  will  leave  out  this  Depart¬ 
ment — which  is  a  little  one  and  can  be  spared — and  give  the 
figures  revised,  as  follows  : 

SEPARATIONS. 


DEPARTMENT. 

Removals. 

Resigna¬ 

tions. 

Deaths. 

Total  Positions 
in  Departments. 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted. 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted. 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted 

State . 

2 

T 

6 

8 

1  J  1 

Treasury . 

395 

728 

376 

290 

86 

3 1 

4,443 

War . 

298 

71 

227 

30 

76 

12 

1,317 

.Navy . 

4 

51 

II 

20 

9 

10 

450 

Post  Office . 

16 

73 

45 

36 

11 

2 

991 

Interior . 

353 

301 

296 

245 

IIO 

16 

3,556 

Justice . 

1 

1 

8 

35 

2 

n 

0 

137 

1,069 

1,226 

969 

664 

295 

74 

Totals . 

2,295 

U633 

369 

11,016 

Totals 


II 


APPOINTMENTS  AND  CHANGES  OF  STATUS. 


DEPART¬ 

MENT. 

♦Appointments. 

Reinstate¬ 

ments. 

Promotions. 

Reductions. 

1 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted. 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted. 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted. 

Competitive. 

Unclassified 

or 

Excepted. 

State  . 

9 

19 

j 

— 

21 

2 

7 

3 

T reasurv . .  . 

726 

1,144 

no 

80 

1,370 

245 

347 

7i 

War . 

152 

133 

— 

— 

375 

12 

268 

2 

Navy . 

39 

80 

— 

45 

19 

19 

8 

Post  Office, 

93 

161 

— 

226 

18 

58 

4 

Interior .... 

345 

684 

180 

145 

i,34i 

228 

630 

38 

Justice . 

90 

5 

— 

61 

23 

1 

i,454 

2,226 

291 

225 

3,439 

547 

1,329 

127 

3,680 

516 

3,98b 

i,45b 

*  Not  including  reinstatements. 


Total. — Separations  by  removal,  resignation  and  death  . . 4.297 

— Appointments  and  reappointments . 4.19b 

“  — Reductions . 1,45b 

“  — Promotions . 3,98b 


It  will  be  seen  that  a  majority  of  the  removals  occurred  in 
the  unclassified  branches — those  covered  in  part  by  subsequent 
classifications,  but  that  even  in  the  case  of  these,  in  the  entire 
departmental  service,  the  total  for  the  full  period  was  but  an 
average  of  about  300  a  year,  with  664  resignations  to  be 
added.  The  figures  you  give  for  the  classified  branches  may 
be  explained  briefly  and  conclusively.  Of  the  1,069  removals 
in  these,  more  than  800  were  made  in  pursuance  of  the 
Dockery  Retrenchment  Acts,  mainly  where  positions  were  ut¬ 
terly  abolished.  You  could  hardly  have  been  ignorant  of  that 
fact  when  you  wrote  that  “  In  the  War  Department  324  of 
those  covered  by  the  civil  service  were  actually  removed  and 
239  resigned,  and  these  places  filled  and  seized  upon  by  the 
tidal  wave  of  reform.”  All  but  eight  of  the  removals  in  the 
classified  service  of  the  War  Department  were  occasioned  by 
the  Dockery  legislation. 

I  might  congratulate  you  on  the  fact  that  owing  to  the 
patriotic  action  of  President  McKinley,  even  the  unrighteous 
removals  of  which  you  complain  will  occur  less  frequently  in 
the  future,  were  it  not  for  the  strangely  anomalous  character 
of  your  reasoning.  You  devote  quite  a  third  of  your  speech 
to  an  exposition  of  the  “  brutality  ”  of  political  removals,  in 
certain  branches  of  the  service,  and  another  third,  in  the  ag¬ 
gregate,  to  an  argument  for  the  application  of  the  same  prin¬ 
ciples  to  every  branch. 


12 


THE  TREATMENT  OF  VETERANS. 

(IV.)  To  return  briefly  to  your  tables,  I  quote  you  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

“  They  succeeded  during  this  administration  in  getting  out  of  those 
departments  1,028  Union  soldiers  :  550  were  appointed,  but  largely  by 
promotion  from  lower  grades,  and  this  is  the  performance  that  stands 
to-day  unrebuked,  etc.,  etc.” 

Again  excepting  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  it  appears 
that  the  total  separation  of  veterans,  by  removal,  resignation 
and  death,  tvas  873,  of  whom  but  513  were  removed.  During 
the  same  period  375  were  appointed  and  329  were  promoted. 
The  latter  were  not  included  in  the  total  of  appointments; 
they  were  additional. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  WASHINGTON. 

(V.)  As  an  excuse  for  indiscriminate  political  proscrip¬ 
tion,  with  removals  of  officers  of  every  grade  at  the  end  of  a 
stated  period,  and  in  the  manner  you  have  so  sternly  condemned, 
you  quote  the  following  from  a  letter  of  Washington  to  Pick¬ 
ering,  then  Secretary  of  War : 

“  I  shall  not,  whilst  1  have  the  honor  to  administer  the  Government, 
bring  a  man  into  any  office  of  consequence  knowingly  whose  political 
tenets  are  adverse  to  the  measures  which  the  General  Government  are 
pursuing  ;  for  this,  in  my  opinion,  would  be  a  sort  of  political  suicide. 
That  it  would  embarass  its  movements  is  most  certain.  But  of  two  men 
equally  well  affected  to  the  true  interests  of  their  country,  of  equal  abili¬ 
ties  and  equally  disposed  to  lend  their  support,  it  is  the  part  of  prudence 
to  give  the  preference  to  him  against  whom  the  least  clamor  can  be  ex¬ 
cited.  For  such  a  one  my  inquiries  have  been  made,  and  are  still  making. 
How  far  I  shall  succeed  is  at  this  moment  problematical.” 

Having  invoked  this  high  authority  you  exclaim,  with  evi¬ 
dent  feeling : 

“Little  did  he  ever  dream  that  the  hour  would  come  in  American  his¬ 
tory  when  the  President  would  have  been  forced  by  law  to  yield  the  ap¬ 
pointing  power,  given  him  by  the  terms  of  the  Constitution,  to  a  bureau 
independent  of  the  President,  and  whose  orders,  if  he  shall  violate  them, 
will  lay  him  liable  to  indictment  and  impeachment.” 

Is  it  possible,  Sir,  that  you  have  not  read  the  whole  of  the 
letter  from  which  you  quote  ?  And  are  you  really  unaware 
of  the  fact  that  the  office  which,  according  to  the  very  language 
of  that  letter,  Washington  had  in  mind,  was  the  Attorney-Gen¬ 
eralship— a  place  in  his  own  Cabinet  ?  For  you  to  resort  to  such 
a  precedent  as  a  reason  for  turning  out  any  officer  now  in  the 
classified  service  who  may  differ  from  the  President  in  his 
notions  about  the  tariff  or  the  currency,  is  manifestly  absurd. 
There  is  not  a  single  officer  having  to  do  with  the  policies  of 
the  government  who  is  not  selected  to-day  for  Washington’s 
reasons,  and  without  restrictions  of  any  sort  except  those  fixed 
by  the  Constitution.  There  are  4,800  such  officers,  appointed 


13 


by  the  President,  to  whom  the  civil  service  act  has  no  relation 
whatever. 

When  we  come  to  the  ;z<?;z-political  offices  there  is  another 
rule  of  Washington’s  that  you  might  have  quoted  more  appro¬ 
priately.  He  would  consider,  he  declared,  three  things  (Writ¬ 
ings  IX,  479):  “  (a)  Fitness,  (b)  Comparative  merits  and  suf¬ 
ferings  in  the  service,  and  (c)  The  equal  distribution  of  ap¬ 
pointments  among  States.”  You  will  find,  I  think,  that  these 
principles  agree  fairly  with  those  of  the  civil  service  system  of 
to-day.  I  hardly  need  add  a  reminder  of  Washington’s  fami¬ 
liar  warnings  against  the  excesses  of  party  spirit,  a  thing  that 
you  would  encourage  by  offering  a  loot  of  the  public  service 
as  the  prize,  and  even  the  issue  of  our  political  contests. 

To  return  to  your  comment  on  the  Pickering  letter,  let  me 
assure  you  that  the  President  has  not  been  “  forced  by  law  ” 
to  yield  any  of  his  powers  to  “  an  independent  bureau.”  On 
the  other  hand,  Presidents  Grant  and  Arthur,  under  whom  the 
civil  service  acts  were  passed,  asked  Congress  for  them.  Each 
extension  since  made  came  of  the  voluntary  action  of  the  Ex¬ 
ecutive,  in  pursuance  of  the  authority  given  by  Congress  in 
response  to  those  requests.  But  the  Presidents  have  not  even 
limited  themselves  their  constitutional  power  of  appointment. 
The  Constitution,  as  you  may  know,  specifies  certain  officers 
that  the  President  may  appoint,  and  adds :  “  But  the  Congress 
may  by  law  vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  officers  as  they 
think  proper  in  the  President  alone,  in  the  Courts  of  Hav,  or  in 
the  heads  of  departme?itsP  The  offices  covered  by  the  civil  service 
law,  with  the  exception  of  about  a  score  of  minor  consequence, 
are  all  of  this  third  class.  So  far  as  these  are  concerned,  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  has  held  (U.  S.  v.  Perkins, 
1 16  U.  S.  483)  that : 

The  head  of  a  department  has  no  constitutional  prerogative  ol’  ap¬ 
pointment  to  offices  independently  of  the  legislation  of  Congress,  and  by 
such  legislation  he  must  be  governed,  not  only  in  making  appointments, 
but  in  all  that  is  incident  thereto. 

The  President,  as  the  head  of  the  Executive  branch,  con 
trols,  of  course,  the  action  of  his  department  officers,  but  he  is 
responsible  only  indirectly  for  their  appointments,  and  in  pro¬ 
mulgating  the  civil  service  rules  he  in  no  way  infringes  his  own 
authority.  As  the  rules  are  his  own,  and  not  those  of  the  Civil 
Service  Commission,  the  cases  in  which  he  will  be  impeached 
for  violating  them  will  be  rare.  Of  course,  the  appointing 
power  is  not  yielded  in  any  event  to  the  Commission.  The 
department  officer  makes  his  own  selection,  but  from  among 
those  certified  by  the  Commission  to  be  the  most  fit.  The  pro¬ 
cess  by  which  the  candidate  becomes  eligible  for  certification  is 
in  some  measure  automatic.  His  own  merit  gives  him  his  chance, 
and  not  the  action  of  the  Commissioners.  To  speak  of  the 
Commission  as  an  appointing  body  is  flagrantly  incorrect. 


14 


THE  FALLACY  OF  THE  “LIFE  TENURE”  ARGUMENT. 

(VI.)  Having  shown  the  wide  difference  in  the  relation  of 
the  law  to  offices  of  the  presidential  class  and  those  that  are 
ministerial  only,  permit  me  to  take  exception  to  one  or  two  of 
your  statements  concerning  the  relation  of  the  latter  to  the 
actual  administration  of  the  government.  I  shall  show  pres¬ 
ently  that  through  the  establishment  of  a  trained  body  of  sub¬ 
ordinates  the  public  business  has  been  expedited  to  a  remark¬ 
able  degree,  and  that,  as  a  direct  consequence,  many  millions 
of  dollars  have  been  and  are  being  saved  to  the  public 
treasury.  I  shall  show  also  that  for  this  and  other  reasons, 
the  filching  of  a  single  office  or  branch  from  the  merit  system 
at  this  juncture  will  be  resented  by  the  people  as  quickly  as  it 
is  understood.  But  another  matter  first : 

You  say  that  the  continued  employment  of  men  who 
are  fitted  and  trained  for  the  work  they  have  to  do 
develops  “life  tenure  in  the  public  service,”  creates  a 
“  class  separated  from  the  common  people  of  the  country  ” 
and  “  saps  the  fundamental  principle  of  a  government 
by  the  people.”  Pardon  me  if  I  suggest  that  this  is  talk  of 
an  exceedingly  reckless  description.  There  is  no  “life 
tenure”  in  our  civil  service.  An  employee,  even  under 
President  McKinley’s  rule,  may  still  be  dismissed  for  reasons 
satisfactory  to  the  department  officer.  He  is  permitted  to  pre¬ 
sent  a  defence,  but  that  must  be  in  writing ;  it  involves  no 
“  trial,”  as  you  have  persistently  declared,  and  the  decision  of 
the  superior  officer  is  final.  The  President’s  rule,  which  by 
the  way  did  not  exist  on  the  date  on  which  your  sentiments 
were  written,  but  appeared  before  they  were  printed,  guaran¬ 
tees  merely  that  so  long  as  a  man’s  work  is  well  done  he  is 
to  be  rewarded  by  decent  treatment.  That  is  merit  tenure, 
not  life  tenure.  If  anything  could  be  more  essentially  Ameri¬ 
can  you  have  not  suggested  it.  Nor  have  you  explained  why 
the  non-political  public  servants  form  a  “  class  separated  from 
the  people.”  If  you  mean  that  they  are  snubbed,  both  sides 
will  resent  it.  If  you  mean  that  these  clerks  and  mechanics, 
and  inspectors  and  scientific  workers,  form  an  “  aristocracy,” 
both  will  be  amused.  If  these  officers  and  employees  form  a 
“  class  ”  of  any  sort  it  is  a  class  of  faithful,  honest  and  capable 
men  and  women,  from  among  whom  the  drones  are  rapidly 
being  driven,  and  the  character  of  whose  services  is  making 
their  calling  constantly  more  honorable.  To  be  a  member  of 
the  Civil  Service  will  be  as  proud  a  thing  to  an  American  citi¬ 
zen  before  very  long  as  it  now  is  to  be  a  member  of  the  Mili¬ 
tary  or  Navy  service. — You  have  not  explained,  by  the  way, 
why  for  consistency’s  sake  you  do  not  advocate  the  disband¬ 
ing  of  the  army  every  four  years,  and  the  handing  over  of  the 
ships  to  untrained  men. 

But  while  a  reasonable  degree  of  permanence  has 


15 


been  secured  in  the  government’s  business  force,  the  tenure  of 
each  man  and  woman  continues  to  depend  solely  on  the  faith¬ 
ful  and  efficient  performance  of  duty.  If  a  clerk  keeps  his 
books  badly  because  he  doesn’t  believe  in  the  tariff  policy  of 
the  administration,  if  a  compositor  sets  his  types  face  down¬ 
ward  for  the  same  reason,  or  the  chief  of  a  counting  room  or 
shop  relaxes  his  discipline,  that  man  is  pretty  sure  to  go,  for 
his  fault  will  be  quickly  discovered.  But  these  things  do  not 
happen.  Your  own  theory  that  employees  of  a  different 
political  faith  “  hate  the  administration  and  look  forward  with 
hope  and  joy  to  its  ultimate  overthrow”  I  think  will  be 
shared  by  very  few  of  the  gentlemen  who  compose  the  admin¬ 
istration,  and  who  are  really  the  most  directly  interested.  The 
President,  for  instance,  continues  as  Executive  Clerk  the 
gentleman  who  held  the  same  confidential  post  under  his 
predecessor,  though  he  might  transfer  him  to  any  other  he 
pleases.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  retains  as  private  secre¬ 
tary  the  gentleman  he  found  occupying  that  office,  and  similar 
instances  might  be  related  by  the  score.  If  such  employees 
may  be  safely  retained  and  trusted,  is  it  not  fair  to  assume  that 
the  occupants  of  the  minor  positions  may  also  be  ? 

The  many  other  reflections  on  the  character  of  the  men  in 
the  service,  contained  in  your  speech,  I  may  add,  are  quite  as 
unjust  as  this  one. 

That  the  classified  service  is  permanent  only  so  far  as  it 
should  be,  to  conform  to  the  elementary  rules  of  good  business 
administration,  is  shown  clearly  by  the  fact  that  the  changes 
in  the  personnel  are  not  only  quite  up  to  the  average  of  those 
in  private  establishments — in  connection  with  which,  by  the 
way,  we  seem  to  hear  no  talk  of  <€  life  tenure” — but  often 
beyond. 

Many  who,  after  a  period  in  the  Service,  have  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  better  their  condition  in  private  employment,  resign. 
Many  retire  for  other  normal  causes,  and  others  are  removed 
in  the  course  of  necessary  discipline. 

The  vacancies  thus  created  are  sufficiently  numerous  to 
warrant  a  large  number  of  annual  appointments.  Since  1884, 
and  up  to  January  30,  1896,  there  had  been  48,421  persons 
appointed  under  the  provisions  of  the  civil  service  act, 
and  the  annual  rate  is  now  above  5,000.  What  do 
you  mean  then  when  you  say  that  this  system  “  bars  access  ”  to 
“  The  voters,  the  electors — who  stand  absolutely  equal  before 
the  law  ?”  Are  not  these  thousands  who  have  secured  ap¬ 
pointment  citizens  of  the  United  States  ?  And  is  it  not  true 
that  each  of  them  have  been  received  on  an  absolutely  equal 
basis  and  afforded  an  absolutely  equal  chance,  according  to 
merit,  to  enter  the  service  of  the  government  ?  And  this,  by 
the  way,  brings  me  to  an  important  subject : 


THE  DEMOCRATIC  CHARACTER  OF  THE  SYSTEM. 

(VII.)  Speaking  of  the  claims  of  the  men  who,  in  1896, 
“  marched  thousands  and  thousands  of  miles  to  hear  the  words 
of  encouragement  and  instruction  from  the  President,”  you 
sav : 

J 

“  They  worked  for  the  country  and  they  worked  for  the  candidates, 
and  I  protest  when  I  find  that  when  they  apply  for  admission  to  partici¬ 
pation,  on  equal  terms,  in  the  administration  of  the  government,  a  door 
of  a  bureau  is  slammed  in  their  faces,  and  they  are  told  that  they  are 
good  enough  to  vote  and  march  and  carry  banners  and  transparencies, 
but  they  are  not  good  enough  to  hold  office  under  the  government  unless 
they  compete  in  scientific  literary  knowledge  with  the  students  of  colleges 
with  wealth.” 

Here,  as  in  the  last  paragraph  that  I  quote,  you  touch  one 
of  the  vital  points  of  this  discussion.  You  make  it  easy  to 
show  that  the  competitive  merit  system  is  the  most  democratic 
that  could  be  devised,  and  that  in  seeking  to  restrict  it  you  seek 
to  take  from  the  young  men  of  the  country  that  very  equality 
of  opportunity  that  you  discuss  with  such  strange  logic;  and 
which,  I  may  add,  it  is  their  right  to  enjoy.  Let  us  consider 
for  a  moment  the  actual  nature  of  the  system :  A  certain 
number  of  men  and  women  are  required  annually  for  the  gov¬ 
ernment  service ;  it  is  announced  that  each  office  or  employ¬ 
ment,  not  filled  by  promotion,  is  open  to  free  competition  in 
which  any  citizen  of  good  character  may  participate.  The 
qualifications  required  in  each  case  are  stated  by  the  officer 
who  is  to  appoint  and  advertised  by  the  Civil  Service  Com¬ 
mission  ;  those  who  believe  they  possess  these  qualifications 
are  permitted  to  enter  applications,  stating,  where  necessary, 
their  previous  experience,  and  accompanied  by  testimonials 
as  to  character  and  habits  from  a  number  of  reputable  persons 
of  their  acquaintance;  twice  yearly,  or,  in  special  cases,  as 
often  as  necessity  requires,  these  applicants  are  called  together 
at  the  city  most  convenient  to  their  homes  in  order  that  the 
qualifications  they  believe  they  have  may  be  ascertained  by 
examination.  The  questions  and  tests  relate  directly  to  the 
duties  they  will,  if  successful,  be  expected  to  perform.  If  the 
applicant  desires  a  clerkship  he  is  examined  with  regard  to 
penmanship,  copying,  tabulating,  or  skill  in  some  special 
branch,  such  as  book-keeping  or  stenography ;  if  he  is  a  me¬ 
chanic,  he  is  tested  merely  in  the  use  of  his  tools,  or  possibly 
with  reference  to  his  physical  ability — such  a  man,  not  being 
required  to  write  his  own  name  if  it  happens  that  he  cannot ; 
if  he  is  a  scientific  wrorker  the  examination  relates  to  scientific 
subjects,  if  a  physician  or  lawyer,  to  the  special  practice  for 
which  he  is  required,  or,  if  he  is  to  be  a  director  of  some  special 
work,  to  his  experience,  technical  knowledge  and  ideas  of  ad¬ 
ministration.  The  tests,  in  every  important  case,  are  prepared 
after  consultation  with  the  department  officers.  If  more  convin¬ 
cing  proof  of  their  practical  nature  is  necessary,  I  would  sug- 


17 


gest  a  reading  of  the  sketch  contained  in  the  admirable  report 
of  the  Chief  Examiner  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  issued 
a  week  ago. 

When  the  candidates  for  a  given  position  have  been 
marked  and  graded  according  to  the  ability  they  have  shown, 
those  standing  highest  are  given  the  earliest  opportunity  for  ap¬ 
pointment,  the  department  officer  selecting  from  the  first  three, 
and  the  others  taking  the  next  turn  for  certification.  If  the  position 
is  fiduciary  in  character,  a  bond  may  be  exacted  in  any  amount 
the  appointing  officer  deems  necessary  for  his  protection.  An 
officer  who  discriminates  against  such  a  candidate  at  this  junc¬ 
ture,  however,  because  of  his  political  or  religious  opinions  is  him¬ 
self  liable  to  removal.  The  appointee  for  six  months  serves  on 
probation.  If  there  is  any  necessary  quality  that  the  exami¬ 
nation  has  failed  to  disclose,  and  that  he  does  not  possess  to  a 
sufficient  degree,  it  is  quite  certain  to  appear  during  this  period 
and  to  result  in  his  rejection.  It  is  only  at  the  end  of  the  pro¬ 
bationary  period  that  the  appointment  is  made  absolute.  After 
that  the  employee  depends  on  his  own  good  work  for  retention 
and  if  he  fails,  may  be  dismissed  in  the  simple  and  proper 
manner  that  President  McKinley  has  prescribed.  While  it  is 
becoming  the  rule,  as  the  system  develops,  that  the  places  in 
the  higher  grades  shall  be  filled  by  the  promotion  of  em¬ 
ployees  who  have  served  best  in  those  of  the  lower,  thus  offer 
mg  a  further  incentive  to  good  work,  the  method  of  entrance 
to  the  service,  or  of  appointment  in  special  cases  as  they  arise, 
remains  as  I  have  outlined  it, 

Plere  is  equality  of  opportunity  that  cannot  be  gainsaid. 
And  it  is  this  system,  opening  the  way  on  the  fairest  of  terms 
to  the  various  branches  of  the  public  service,  that  you  pro¬ 
pose  either  wholly  or  in  part  to  break  down,  substituting  the 
old  plan  under  which  the  man  who  has  the  favor  of  a  local 
political  potentate  has  the  best,  nay  the  only,  chance  of  ap¬ 
pointment,  and  under  which  the  real  equality  of  opportunity 
is  to  be  abolished.  Your  statement  that  the  scheme  you  pro¬ 
pose  has  “  popular  ”  support  I  deny  unhesitatingly. 

It  may  be  added  that,  under  the  present  system,  the  men 
who  marched  “  thousands  and  thousands  of  miles  ”  to 
Canton  will  be  received  on  perfectly  equal  terms  when 
they  apply  for  offices;  but  when  they  are  given  offices 
it  will  be  for  the  reason  that  they  are  able  to  perform  the  du¬ 
ties  attached  to  them,  and  not  merely  because  they  “  marched 
and  voted  and  carried  banners  and  transparencies.”  The 
door  of  the  Bureau  you  have  in  mind  is  not  “  slammed  in 
their  faces”;  it  is  opened  to  them  widely.  I  venture  the  sug¬ 
gestion,  moreover,  that  a  great  many  of  them  went  to  Canton 
from  different  motives  from  those  you  suggest,  and  that  the 
things  that  inspired  these  most  were  the  principles  for  which 
they  and  their  leader  were  contending. 


The  sole  basis  of  your  charge  of  inequality  under  the  merit 
system  seems  to  be  the  exploded  fiction  about  the  “  college 
graduate.”  The  Civil  Service  Commissioners  will  tell  you  that 
eighty  per  cent,  of  the  men  they  have  passed  have  come  from 
the  country’s  common  schools,  and  that  ten  per  cent,  more 
have  come  from  the  academies  and  business  schools.  They 
will  give  you  the  exact  figures  if  you  wish  them,  showing, 
moreover,  that  the  few  college  men  who  have  been  appointed 
are  employed  almost  wholly  in  those  scientific  and  professional 
positions  for  which  only  those  who  have  had  a  college  train¬ 
ing  would  be  eligible.  To  repeat  that  fiction,  especially  in  the 
•manner  of  language  in  which  you  have  employed  it,  is  a  most 
unfair  proceeding.  You  give  another  illustration  of  the 
“  injustice”  the  system  works  to  the  average  citizen;  you  find 
that  he  must  pay  25  cents  to  the  notary  who  witnesses  the 
signature  to  his  application  papers,  and,  in  extreme  cases,  10 
cents  for  car  fare,  in  going  to  and  from  the  board  rooms.  This 
you  call  “  obtaining  money  under  false  pretenses,”  in  as  much 
as  the  Commission  admits  many  persons  to  the  examinations 
who  never  secure  appointments;  more,  that  the  Commission, 
by  subtle  pursuasion,  induces  such  persons  to  compete,  know¬ 
ing  that  the  sole  result  will  be  the  enrichment  of  some  notary 
or  street  car  monopoly.  You  may  not  know  that  the  Com¬ 
mission  sends  to  each  applicant  a  pamphlet,  giving  among 
other  things  the  table  of  examinations  and  appointments  for 
some  years  past  and  pointing  out,  as  clearly  as  possible,  the 
chance  that  each  will  have  to  succeed.  That  should  be 
made  plain,  though  your  argument  of  the  expense  to  the  candi¬ 
date  cannot  be  taken  seriously.  You  give  two  columns  to  it,  but 
do  you  not  perceive  that  people  of  a  statistical  turn  of  mind  will 
begin  to  figure  out  the  cost  to  the  candidate  under  the  former 
plan,  including  in  most  cases  railroad  tickets  to  W ashington,  ho¬ 
tel  board,  entertainment,  and  all  the  other  items  that  bankrupted 
so  many  zealous  office  seekers  in  those  unforgotten  days.  There 
are  few  who  will  not  assure  you  that  by  comparison  the  25  cents, 
or  the  35  cents,  expense  under  the  new  plan  is  not  immoderate. 

HOW  EFFICIENCY  AND  ECONOMY  HAVE  BEEN  PROMOTED. 

(VIII.)  However,  Sir,  now  that  the  advantage  of  the  open 
competitive  sytem  to  the  citizen  has  been  considered,  let  us 
take  up  the  equally  important  matter  of  the  advantage  to  the 
government.  You  say: 

“There  has  never  been  a  cool,  deliberate,  dispassionate  and  candid 
and  just  argumeut  made  by  these  men  why  this  law  should  be  upheld 
and  vindicated.  They  have  never  yet  dared  touch  the  true  test  of  the 
efficiency  or  non-efficiency,  the  beneficent  or  non-beneficent  character 
of  the  administration  of  this  law  in  the  United  States.  I  propose  that  they 
shall  have  an  opportunity  now.” 

When  we  consider  your  daily  walk ;  how  you  are  compassed 


19 


about  with  the  records  and  reports  of  many  administrations, 
bearing,  as  they  do,  testimony  unlimited  to  the  wisdom  and  to 
the  efficiency  of  this  system,  this  must  be  set  down  as  a  some¬ 
what  bold  and  remarkable  statement.  There  has  hardly  been 
a  President,  ora  department  chief,  or  in  fact,  any  officer  who 
has  had  a  year’s  experience  in  the  direction  of  any  part  of  the 
business  of  the  government,  who  has  not  added  his  commenda¬ 
tion  of  the  law. 

But  you  are  armed  with  an  argument  that  is  to  set  this  tes¬ 
timony  at  naught,  and  make  you  irresistible.  You  say: 

“  In  1883,  when  the  civil  service  law  was  passed,  there  were  131,800 
members  of  the  civil  service  of  the  government.  In  1897  there  were 
178,717,  an  increase  of  46,917  in  thirteen  years.  This  increase  is  largely 
out  of  proportion  to  the  increase  in  population  in  the  United  States,  and 
yet  during  that  period  we  have  had  the  Dockery  act  and  the  report  of 
the  Dockery  Commission,  which  was  carried  into  execution,  by  which  it 
was  supposed  that  a  large  lopping  off  of  the  employees  was  to  take 
place,  but  the  growth  of  the  civil  service  domination  has  been  so  great 
that  efficiency  is  no  longer  the  rule.” 

In  brief,  you  give  the  increases  in  the  classified  and  un¬ 
classified  branches,  without  distinction,  and  cheerfully  charge 
both  to  the  operation  of  the  civil  service  act.  Though  hardly 
a  tenth  of  the  service  was  classified  in  1883,  and  less  than  half 
to  day,  you  would  have  the  people  believe  that  the  entire 
growth  during  these  fourteen  years, — including  even  the  fourth 
class  post-offices  that  multiply  at  the  rate  of  several  thousand 
annually, — has  been  within  the  classified  service  and  notwith¬ 
standing  the  merit  rules.  Here,  you  say,  is  proof  positive 
that  the  system  is  expensive,  and  that,  “with  the  growth  of  the 
civil  service  domination,”  efficiency  is  no  longer  possible. 

Your  ingenuous  friend,  Mr.  Gallinger,  figures  out  that 
the  Civil  Service  system  is  expensive  because  the  per  capita 
cost  of  government  has  increased  since  i860  from  $3  to  $7, 
including,  of  course,  the  expenditures  for  pensions,  public 
buildings,  rivers  and  harbors,  and  all  else.  But  with  Mr. 
Gallinger  it  has  perhaps  been  an  innocent  failure  to  compre¬ 
hend;  in  your  own  case  I  do  not  think  that  so  much  can  be 
*  said. 

The  official  records,  that  are  ahvays  easily  accessible,  show 
that,  while  in  those  branches  of  the  service  that  have  not  been 
under  the  rules  there  have  been  material  increases  in  the  num¬ 
ber  of  employees  and  in  the  appropriations  for  their  salaries  ; 
in  the  branches  originally  classified  there  has  been  an  actual 
decrease,  notwithstanding  the  expansion  of  the  departmental 
functions  and  the  increasing  volume  of  work.  It  is  the  un¬ 
classified  growth  that  has  made  up  the  whole  of  your  total  of 
increase.  A  brief  summary  of  the  figures  will  make  this  fact 
perhaps  plainer.  I  give,  by  way  of  illustration,  those  for 
the  originally  classified  and  unclassified  Department  Service, 
and  those  for  the  Judicial  and  Legislative  branches: 


20 


Departmental  Service. 


1083- 

Officers  and  employees,  unclassified . 7,847 

Salaries  paid . $6,792,377 

Number  of  persons  subject  to  competitive  ex¬ 
amination  by  original  classification . 5,530 

Salaries  paid . $7,035,820 

Number  at  present  in  same  classes . 

Salaries  paid . 


Judicial  Branch. 


Officers  and  employees . 6 

Salaries  paid . $15,000 


Legislative  Branch. 


Senate  officers  and  employees . 154 

Salaries  paid.  . . $276,044 

House  officers  and  employees . 197 

Salaries  paid . $364,028 


1896. 

10,760 

$9,746,252 


5,414 

$6,960,602 


89 

$114,150 


326 

$432,228 

591 

$624,022 


These  figures  are  not  of  course  affected  by  the  more  recent 
additions  to  the  classified  service;  they  are  of  date  of  April 
r,  1896. 

The  municipal  service  of  the  District  of  Columbia  is  an¬ 
other  unclassified  branch  that  may  be  referred  to.  The  figures 
in  this  case  are  as  follows : 

1883.  1896. 

Officers  and  employees . . . 1,145  2,575 

Salaries  paid.  .  . $912,826  $1,918,479 


The  total  of  all  originally  classified  clerkships  at  Wash¬ 
ington  has  decreased  3.9  per  cent,  since  1883,  effecting  a 
saving  of  $228,200  annually.  If  the  number  of  classified 
employees  had  increased  at  a  rate  proportionate  to  that  in 
unclassified  branches  the  additional  cost  to  the  government 
would  have  been  $3,100,620  anualiv  at  Washington  alone. 

There  are  several  perfectly  plain  reasons  for  these  figures. 
In  the  first  place,  the  withdrawal  of  the  power  to  secure 
positions  through  political,  or  social,  or  good  natured  personal 
influence,  has  removed  the  principal  cause  for  the  unneces- 
ary  increase  of  the  number  of  such  positions.  That  you  will 
appreciate.  Again,  it  is  well  known  that  one  man,  trained  and 
experienced  in  a  particular  kind  of  work  will  accomplish  often 
as  much  as  two  who  are  not  so  trained ;  and,  finally,  there  is  the 
constant  incentive  to  good  work  in  a  service  in  which  tenure, 
as  well  as  advancement,  depends  upon  proved  merit 
alone.  It  is  not  strange  that  with  these  simple  forces  at  work 
such  figures  may  be  presented.  That  they  are  not  exception¬ 
al  may  be  proved,  if  that  was  necessary,  by  reference  to  other 
branches.  A  file  of  the  reports  of  the  Civil  Service  Commis¬ 
sion  will  give  many  instructive  instances  of  increases  effected 
in  both  economy  and  efficiency.  From  this  and  other  sources 
I  will  give  a  few,  for  purposes  of  further  illustration  : 

(1.)  In  the  Treasury  Department,  at  Washington,  the 


21 


number  of  clerks  decreased  after  classification,  from  1725  in 
1883  to  1583  in  1896,  a  difference  of  8.2  per  cent.  In  the 
sub-treasuries,  outside  Washington,  that  were  unclassified 
during  the  same  period,  the  number  increased  from  76  to  122, 
a  difference  of  46  per  cent. 

(2.)  In  the  Immigration  Service,  since  the  extension  of  the 
rules  to  that  branch  in  May,  1896,  a  saving  has  been  effected 
of  $55,000  annually,  by  abolishing  a  number  of  the  positions 
classified,  as  they  became  vacant,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the 
pressure  for  such  positions  had  been  withdrawn. 

(3.)  In  the  Philadelphia  Mint,  since  the  classification,  al¬ 
though  the  amount  of  work  accomplished  has  increased  very 
materially,  the  number  of  men  employed  is  42  less,  with  an 
annual  saving  in  expense  of  nearly  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

(4.)  Commissioner  Carroll  D.  Wright,  who  assumed  the  di¬ 
rection  of  the  Eleventh  census,  some  time  before  its  completion, 
testified  recently  that  as  the  result  of  a  careful  judgment  he 
concluded  that  if  the  rules  had  been  applied  in  the  selection 
of  the  clerks  and  collectors  of  statistics  in  1890,  the  census 
would  have  cost  the  Government  $2,000,000  less. 

(5.)  The  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  in  his  report  for  1896, 
stated  that  although  the  work  of  his  Department  had  been  very 
much  broadened  since  the  application  of  the  rules,  there  had 
been  a  reduction  of  280  employees  and  that  during  three  and 
a  half  years  there  had  been  covered  back  into  the  treasury, 
almost  wholly  in  consequence  of  the  greater  efficiency  shown, 
a  total  of  $2,066,661. 

(6.)  Postmaster- General  Gary,  in  his  report  for  1897, 
shows  that  since  the  application  of  the  rules  to  the  Railway 
Mail  Service,  the  number  of  correct  deliveries  of  mail  pieces 
to  one  error  has  increased  from  3,694  in  1888  to  11,960  in 
1897.  The  gradual  increase  from  year  to  year  is  as  shown 
follows : 


1888 . 

.  3.694 

1889 . 

.  3,954 

1890 . 

.  2,834 

1891 . 

.  4,261 

1892 . 

.  5,564 

1893 . 

.  7U44 

1894 . 

.  7,831 

1895 . 

1896 . 

.  9,843 

1897 . 

.  11,960 

The  low  figures  of  1890  followed  the  numerous  changes 
made  in  the  service  during  the  preceding  year. 

(7.)  In  his  report  for  the  year  1896,  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue  used  the  following  language  : 


“  I  desire  to  call  special  attention  tot  he  marked  improvement  of  the 
service  in  the  field  since  the  classification  under  the  civil  service  law  of 
the  various  employees  in  that  branch  of  the  service.  This  is  especially 
noticeable  in  those  districts  in  which  there  has  heretofore  been  a  dispo¬ 
sition  on  the  part  of  subordinate  employees  to  enter  into  collusion  with 
persons  engaged  in  the  illicit  manufacture  and  sale  of  distilled  spirits.  .  .  . 

“  Under  present  conditions  the  employee  has  learned  that  a  serious 


22 


infraction  of  his  duty  renders  him  liable  to  peremptory  dismissal  from 
the  service,  and  that  without  any  hope  of  reemployment.  He  has  also 
learned  that  a  strict  compliance  on  his  part  with  the  law  and  regulations 
will  place  him  in  the  line  of  promotion  and  enable  him  to  be  advanced 
to  the  higher  grades  of  the  service.” 


(8.)  The  report  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Bureau  of 
Engraving  and  Printing,  for  the  same  year,  shows  that  not¬ 
withstanding  the  fact  that  the  work  of  that  Bureau  has  in¬ 
creased  over  77  per  cent.,  the  force  has  increased  only  ii  per 
cent.  While  this  difference  is  accounted  for  in  part  by  the  in¬ 
troduction  of  improved  machinery,  it  is  admitted  that  it  is 
due  in  greater  part  to  the  operation  of  the  civil  service  law. 
The  difference  between  the  old  methods  and  the  new  may  best 
be  shown  by  quoting  the  report  made  by  a  commission  of 
Treasury  experts  who  investigated  that  Bureau  prior  to  the 
enactment  of  the  civil  service  law.  This  will  have  particular 
interest  in  view  of  the  suggestion  contained  in  your  speech, 
that  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  law  “  There  was  no  ne¬ 
cessity  for  greater  efficiency  or  purer  morals  in  the  Depart¬ 
ments  at  Washington,  or  in  the  great  bureaus  in  other  cities.” 

The  passage  from  the  report  that  I  have  in  mind  is  as 
follows : 


‘  ‘  The  whole  system  seems  to  have  revolved  in  a  vicious  circle.  Ap¬ 
propriations  have  been  secured  by  making  appointments  for  Congress¬ 
men,  without  regard  to  the  fitness  of  the  appointees  or  the  necessities  of 
the  work  ;  and  when  secured  they  have  been  expended  in  such  manner 
as  to  retain  the  good  will  of  those  already  friendly  or  to  secure  that  of 
others.  Moreover,  the  Bureau  has  been  made  to  subserve  to  a  great  ex¬ 
tent  the  purpose  of  an  almshouse  or  asylum.  .  .  . 

“  We  can  not  condemn  too  strongly  the  system  of  patronage,  which 
is  chiefly  responsible  for  the  extravagance  and  irregularities  that  have 
heretofore  marked  the  management  of  the  Bureau,  and  which,  it  is  safe 
to  say,  has  cost  the  people  millions  of  dollars  in  this  branch  of  the  service 
alone.” 


(9.)  In  the  Government  Printing  Office  under  the  old  sys¬ 
tem,  as  late  as  1 894,  there  were  3,38 1  persons  employed.  Since 
the  classification,  although  the  amount  of  work  has  increased 
20  per  cent.,  the  force  has  been  reduced  to  2,828.  One  sim¬ 
ple  illustration  of  the  growth  of  the  work  is  afforded  by  the  in¬ 
crease  in  the  amount  of  paper  used.  In  1894  there  were  4,823 
tons  consumed,  against  5,457  a  year  after  the  rules  had  been 
applied,  in  1896. 

The  foreman  of  the  Specification  division  of  the  Printing 
Office  testified  recently  that  by  an  actual  comparison  of  the 
number  of  eras  of  type  set  by  compositors  coming  in  under  the 
two  systems,  he  found  the  new  men  from  10  to  50  per  cent, 
superior  to  the  old.  This  same  officer,  who  is  one  of  the  best 
known  printers  in  the  country,  testified  that  if  the  merit  system 
had  been  applied  to  the  Printing  Office  during  the  full  period 
of  its  existence  the  saving  to  date  would  have  been  $8,500,- 
000. 


23 


,■»  (io.)  General  Tracy,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  said,  in  1892  : 

“  The  persons  appointed  under  this  system  are  unquestionably  more 
efficient,  as  a  whole,  than  those  selected  under  any  system  of  pure  pat¬ 
ronage.” 

The  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  speaking  of  the  order  plac¬ 
ing  pension  agencies  under  the  rules,  in  1896,  said: 

“  The  wisdom  of  the  change  has  been  demonstrated  in  the  increased 
efficiency  of  the  clerical  force,  and  the  decided  improvement  in  the  en¬ 
tire  agency  service.” 

Secretary  of  the  Interior  Noble  added  his  testimony  as 
follows : 

“The  Department  of  the  Interior,  with  its  7,500  clerks,  could  not 
be  run  six  months  without  the  great  body  of  the  employees  being  under 
the  civil  service  rules.” 

I  will  end  these  citations  with  two  from  other  Cabinet  of¬ 
ficers,  one  a  Democrat  and  the  other  a  Republican,  that  I 
am  sure  will  be  given  weight. 

Postmaster- General  Bisseli,  in  the  second  year  of  his 
term,  gave  his  judgment  as  follows  : 

“Another  year’s  experience  has  served  only  to  strengthen  the  con¬ 
viction  expressed  in  my  last  annual  report  as  to  the  excellent  working  of 
the  civil  service  law  in  the  Post  Office  Department,  and  my  desire  to 
see  its  operation  extended  to  every  branch  of  the  postal  service  to  which 
such  extension  is  practicable.” 

A  few  years  earlier  Mr.  Windorn,  then  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  wrote : 

“The  beneficial  influences  of  the  civil  service  law  in  its  practical 
workings  are  clearly  apparent.  Having  been  at  the  head  of  the  depart¬ 
ment  both  before  and  after  its  adoption,  I  am  able  to  judge  by  the  com¬ 
parison  of  the  two  systems  and  have  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  the 
present  condition  of  affairs  as  preferable  in  all  respects.” 

A  volume  might  be  filled  with  quotations  of  this  sort,  but  it 
is  not  necessary  to  repeat  them.  There  is  no  voice  of  dissent; 
no  Secretary  having  had  that  important  “  year’s  experience  ” 
who  does  not  give  the  same  testimony.  The  Presidents,  without 
exception,  from  Grant  to  McKinley,  have  spoken  in  the  same 
tone,  and  from  1883  to  the  present  day  there  has  not  been 
one  of  them  who  has  not  had  the  consistent  support  of  Con¬ 
gress.  Is  it  conceivable  that  their  unanimous  judgment  will 
be  impeached,  or  that  there  are  gentlemen  who,  like  yourself, 
in  the  face  of  the  overwhelming  proof  to  the  contrary,  will  de¬ 
clare  that  this  system  does  not  improve  the  service,  or  that  it 
has  not  saved  millions  of  dollars  of  the  people’s  money  ? 

EXCEPTIONS  BY  LEGISLATION  WOULD  BE  WITHOUT  REASON. 

(IX.)  At  the  conclusion  of  your  speech  you  announce  your 
programme  as  follows : 


24 


* ‘  I  for  one,  deeply  as  I  feel  these  wrongs,  will  not  ask  the  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  United  States,  even  though  my  voice  may  be  heeded,  to  incur 
the  responsibility  of  reversing  the  action  of  his  predecessors,  beyond  that 
to  which  his  own  good  sense  and  good  judgment  may  be  commend¬ 
ed  :  but  I  will  ask  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  modify  this 
law.” 

It  is  here  that,  after  crying  out  from  the  quiet  recesses  of 
the  Record ,  “  Mr.  Speaker!  this  voice  ....  this  shout  of  de¬ 
nunciation,  has  got  to  be  recognized  on  this  floor!”  You 
declare  that  you  will  not  be  “  smothered.”  While  your  self- 
control  in  the  matter  of  the  suggestions  the  President  “  might 
have  heeded”  is  more  or  less  commendable,  it  is  not  ap¬ 
parent  why  you  should  now  seek  to  force  him  by  legislation 
to  do  the  things  you  have  so  generously  refrained  from  asking 
him  to  do.  There  is  not  a  reason,  founded  in  decency  or 
truth,  that  you  can  bring  in  support  of  the  exception  of  a  single 
branch  or  office  now  subject  to  the  civil  service  rules.  If  there 
are  individual  positions  that,  for  reasons  having  to  do  with 
their  peculiar  nature,  should  be  excepted,  the  President  has 
ample  power  to  act,  and  he  has  said  that  wherever  he  is  able 
to  find  such  a  position  he  will  act.  He  informs  the  Congress 
that  the  discretion  vested  in  the  Executive  will  be  exercised 
justly  and  carefully  in  every  proper  case,  and  you  respond  with 
a  movement  for  a  vote  of  “No  confidence.”  What  you  pro¬ 
pose  would,  under  the  circumstances,  amount  to  a  personal  in¬ 
dignity  offered  the  President.  Coupled  with  a  repudiation  of 
the  party  pledge  to  “take  no  step  backward”  on  this  ques¬ 
tion,  and  to  maintain  and  exte?id  the  application  of  the  civil 
service  law,  it  would  be  received  by  the  country  in  a  way  you 
may  not  expect. 

But  aside  from  what  may  and  what  may  not  be  the  legis¬ 
lative  function  in  this  matter,  it  is  the  fact,  as  I  have  said,  that 
not  a  single  exception  that  Congress  might  order  could  be 
justified.  The  rules  work  well  in  every  case;  wherever  they 
have  been  applied  efficiency  and  economy  have  been  promoted, 
and,  what  is  of  equal  moment,  the  offices  they  cover  have,  in 
the  best  sense,  been  placed  within  reach  of  the  people  and  be¬ 
long  to  the  people. 

There  are  certain  specific  exceptions  to  which  you  have 
frequently  referred,  and  against  each  of  which  arguments  may 
be  submitted  as  conclusive  as  any  this  paper  contains.  I  may 
add  that  as  soon  as  it  may  be  necessary  I  shall  attempt  to 
give  these  arguments  publicly,  and  will  ask  for  them  the 
consideration  of  your  colleagues.  There  are,  as  well,  some 
two  score  or  more  of  what  I  may  term  your  minor  misstate¬ 
ments,  that  may  be  treated  in  a  supplementary  letter,  and 
there  is  the  highly  remarkable  system  you  propose  to  substi¬ 
tute  for  the  present  one  that  is  still  to  be  set  up  for  public  in¬ 
spection.  This  paper  was  intended  to  be  sufficiently  compre- 


25 


hensive  to  cover  these  things,  but  it  must  serve,  if  useful  for 
any  purpose,  as  a  more  general  survey. 

To  your  fellow  members,  many  of  whom  have  given  you 
sympathy  or  support  for  the  reason  that  these  statements  of 
yours  have  been  accepted  as  true  and  entitled  to  credit,  I 
think  the  appeal  may  safely  be  made  not  to  permit  the  taking 
of  a  single  backward  step. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  system  includes  only  those 
branches  and  positions  it  was  intended  to  include,  and  should 
include,  and  that  the  two  great  political  parties  are  almost 
equally  responsible  for  the  extensions  that,  have  been 
made ;  it  has  been  shown  that  no  real  partisan  advantage 
has  been  gained  by  any  of  these  extensions,  and  that 
even  if  the  Democratic  administration  had  not  made  those 
of  more  recent  date  the  incoming  Republican  administra¬ 
tion  would  have  stood  pledged  to  make  them ;  it  has 
been  shown  that  the  improper  removals  and  reductions  which, 
such  as  they  were,  have  given  rise  to  so  much  criticism  of  the 
system  in  past  years,  were  not  governed  in  any  degree  by  the 
civil  service  law — and  it  is  obvious  that  if  this  were  not  the 
case,  President  McKinley’s  wise  rule,  which  guards  the  future, 
would  not  have  been  needed;  it  has  been  made  plain  that  the 
great  body  of  officers  having  to  do  with  the  political  policies 
of  the  government  are  not  affected  by  the  law  and  that  an  ad¬ 
ministration  is  helped,  not  hampered,  by  the  regulation  of  the 
business  service  through  business  rules;  it  has  been  made 
plain,  too,  that  the  “life  tenure”  so  much  discussed  does  not 
exist,  and  that  the  changes  in  the  service  for  normal  reasons 
are  sufficient  to  give  employment  to  thousands  of  citizens  an¬ 
nually;  it  has  been  shown  that  these  citizens  are  received  on 
a  basis  of  absolute,  democratic  equality,  and  that  the  system 
through  which  their  qualifications  are  tested,  and  the  best  fit¬ 
ted  selected,  is  in  the  highest  degree  practical,  quite  free  from 
the  imperfections  and  absurdities  that  are  so  frequently  de¬ 
scribed  by  those  who  ought  to  know  better,  and  challenging  the 
most  careful  scrutiny ;  it  hasbeen  demonstrated  that  wherever  this 
system  has  been  applied  it  promotes  economy,  that  it  improves 
the  efficiency  of  the  work  done  for  the  government,  that  it 
saves  millions  of  dollars  to  the  treasury,  and  that  it  frees  de¬ 
partment  officers  from  the  importunities  of  those  who,  in  the  old 
days,  often  quite  consumed  the  time  required  for  the  business  of 
administration ;  it  may  be  shown  that  sound  reasons  for 
withdrawing  any  part  of  the  present  classified  service  from  the 
operation  of  this  system,  or  for  the  modification  of  the  sensible 
rules  now  regulating  both  appointment  and  tenure,  do  not 
and  cannot  exist;  it  is  so  plainly  true  that  the  Republican 
party  is  pledged  not  to  make  such  changes  that,  as  I  have  said, 
it  is  inconceivable  that  a  movement  such  as  you  are  leading, 
could  have  for  an  hour  the  support  of  a  Member  of  that  party. 


26 


The  President,  having  the  power  to  modify the 
system  practically  as  he  pleases,  has  chosen  to  uphold 
and  to  strengthen  it.  His  course  during  the  past  nine 
months  in  this  regard  has  won  him  the  applause  and  the 
admiration  of  the  people,  and  his  courage  and  honorable  deal¬ 
ing  will  never  be  forgotten.  It  was  said  in  General  Grant’s 
day  that  the  administration  that  accomplished  the  final  estab¬ 
lishment  of  civil  service  reform  would  win  a  glory  not  less 
lasting  than  that  which  ended  human  slavery.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  is  true ;  nor  that  a  large  part  of  that  glory 
will  be  attached  to  the  administration  of  Mr.  McKinley.  The 
President  has  kept  the  party  faith.  When  you  ask  the  people 
to  believe  that  the  Republicans  in  Congress  will  not  do  like¬ 
wise,  they  refuse  to  credit  you. 

The  pledge  of  the  party  at  St.  Louis,  made  when  the 
lines  of  the  classified  service  were  drawn  as  they  are  drawn 
now,  was  most  explicit : 

“  The  civil  service  law  was  placed  on  the  statute  book  by  the  Re¬ 
publican  party,  which  has  always  sustained  it,  and  we  renew  our  repeated 
declarations  that  it  shall  be  thoroughly  and  honestly  enforced  and  ex¬ 
tended  wherever  practicable.” 

Speaking  in  the  House,  on  the  26th  of  February  last,  you 
proclaimed  as  follows : 

“  Mr.  Speaker  :  Important  declarations  in  political  platforms  are 
never  the  result  of  accident,  but  are  always  the  result  of  design.  They 
are  always  born  of  conditions  existing  in  the  constituents  of  the  party 
that  gives  the  utterance.  The  Republican  convention  at  St.  Louis  was 
a  representative  body  of  a  great  party  in  the  country,  and  the  men  who 
went  there  and  represented  their  several  constituencies  understood  the 
conditions  at  home.  They  did  not  go  to  St.  Louis  to  declare  a  platitude, 
nor  to  make  a  declaration  that  was  not  demanded  by  existing  conditions, 
and  that  was  not  in  consonance  with  the  opinions  of  their  constituents. 

It  was  an  occasion  that  will  be  a  warning  to  a  great  many 
men  in  this  country  that  they  must  obey  party  dictation  and  follow  party 
standards,  or  cease  to  be  members  of  that  party.” 

If  it  is  your  purpose  to  repudiate,  yourself,  a  pledge  made 
and  reiterated  by  the  Republican  party  for  thirty  years,  and 
thus  to  drum  yourself  out  of  its  ranks ;  if  you  seek  to  set  up 
again  the  u spoils”  system  in  the  whole  service  or  in  any  of 
its  parts,  regardless  of  the  interest  of  the  government  or  of  the 
rights  of  the  people,  why  not  be  more  frank  about  it  ?  Make 
the  issue  plain,  forego  your  use  of  false  pretences,  and  no  one, 
Sir,  who  has  at  heart  the  welfare  of  this  reform,  need  fear  the 
result. 

Yours  very  truly, 

George  McAneny, 

Secretary. 


December  15,  1897. 


4 


* 


i 


f 


3  0112  061942592 


